Frank R. Crabtree, Jr., et al. v. State of Oklahoma, ex rel., Oklahoma Department of Mines, Suzen Rodesney, Director, Kristen Bugg, Ada Aggregates, LLC

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF PONTOTOC COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA FRANK R. CRABTREE, JR., an individual, LISA CRABTREE, an individual, the FRANK R. CRABTREE, JR. REVOCABLE TRUST, an Oklahoma trust, THOMAS B. CRABTREE, an individual, DARLENE CRABTREE, an individual, the TOM CRABTREE AND DARLENE CRABTREE FAMILY TRUST, an Oklahoma trust THOMAS BLAKE CRABTREE, JR., an individual, MELISSA CRABTREE, an individual, CARLYLE HILL, an individual, DONNA HILL, an individual, ERYN HANSON, an individual, ERIK HANSON, an individual, LUKE CRABTREE, an individual, and CRABTREE FARMS, INC. an Oklahoma corporation, Plaintiffs, v. STATE OF OKLAHOMA, ex rel., OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF MINES, SUZEN RODESNEY, Director of the Oklahoma Department of Mines, KRISTEN BUGG, and ADA AGGREGATES, LLC, an Oklahoma limited liability company, Defendants. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS Plaintiffs FRANK R. CRABTREE, JR., an individual, LISA CRABTREE, an individual, the FRANK R. CRABTREE, JR. REVOCABLE TRUST, an Oklahoma trust, THOMAS B. CRABTREE, an individual, DARLENE CRABTREEE, an individual, the TOM CRABTREE AND DARLENE CRABTREE FAMILY TRUST, an Oklahoma trust THOMAS BLAKE CRABTREE, JR., an individual, MELISSA CRABTREE, an individual, CARLYLE HILL, an individual, DONNA HILL, an individual, ERYN HANSON, an individual, ERIK HANSON, an individual, LUKE CRABTREE, an individual, and CRABTREE FARMS, INC. an Oklahoma corporation (collectively, "Plaintiffs") seek a writ of mandamus to compel the Defendant State of Oklahoma, ex rel., Oklahoma Department of Mines (the "Department"), Suzen Rodesney in her capacity as the Director of the Oklahoma Department of Mines ("Rodesney"), and Kristen Bugg ("Bugg"), in her capacity as the designated hearing examiner in The Matter of Application of Ada Aggregates, LLC, Case No. . PAN 25-03-FH, Permit L.E. 2890, pending before the Oklahoma Department of Mines (the "Administrative Proceeding"), to afford Plaintiffs the opportunity to conduct reasonable discovery within a reasonable amount to time. In support of their request, Plaintiffs state: BACKGROUND 1. The Department is also tasked with the responsibility to "protect the environment of the state, to protect the health and safety of the miners and to protect the life, health, and property of the citizens who are affected through enforcement of the state mining and reclamation laws." 2. Ms. Rodesney is the Director of the Department. 3. Ms. Bugg was appointed as the hearing examiner in the Administrative Proceedings. 4. Plaintiffs are landowners residing in Pontotoc County, Oklahoma. 5. By virtue of 12 O.S. § 1451, this Court is vested with the jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus to any inferior tribunal to compel the performance of any act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty, resulting from an office. 6. In October 2023, Ada Aggregates, LLC ("Ada Aggregates") filed an Application to Engage in Non-Coal Mining with the Department seeking a permit to engage in non-coal blasting and mining on 311 acres situated in Sections 25, 26, and 35, Township 3 N, Range 5 East, in Pontotoc County, Oklahoma. 7. Plaintiffs own land adjacent to the proposed mining operation with some of Plaintiffs living as close as 500' – 600' from the proposed quarry. 8. Even though the proposed quarry was to be located right in the middle of Plaintiffs’ homes, Ada Aggregates failed to provide actual notice of its permit application to Plaintiffs and other neighboring landowners. 9. As a result, Plaintiffs were not afforded an opportunity to be heard or conduct discovery concerning the application, and the Department issued the requested permit to Ada Aggregates. 10. When Plaintiffs learned of the permit and requested a hearing before the Department, Plaintiffs’ request was denied. 11. Plaintiffs subsequently sought review in this Court in Frank R. Crabtree, Jr., et al. v. State of Oklahoma ex rel., Oklahoma Department of Mines, Case No. CV-2024-53, District Court of Pontotoc County, State of Oklahoma. 12. On May 19, 2025, this Court held that Ada Aggregates had failed to provide proper notice of their prior application and invalidated the prior permit. That decision is currently on appeal in Frank R. Crabtree, Jr., et al. v. State of Oklahoma ex rel. Oklahoma Department of Mines, Case No. 123198. 13. On July 25, 2025, Ada Aggregates, LLC, filed yet another Application to Engage in Non-Coal Mining with the Department seeking a permit to engage in non-coal blasting and mining on the same 311 acres (the “Application”). 14. On December 4, 2025, the Department held an informal conference in Ada, Oklahoma. 15. A number of Plaintiffs attended the conference to voice their concerns about the proposed quarry, including fugitive dust, excessive noise, dangerous blasting and increased traffic on the already busy highway. 16. Despite these concerns, on December 12, 2025, Travis Shore, Chief of Minerals Operations, recommended that the Department approve the Application. 17. On January 9, 2026, Plaintiffs filed their Protest of Departmental Recommendation of Application Approval and Request for Hearing with the Department. The Protest requested a formal hearing to consider the Application and the recommendation of the Department and that after such consideration, a proposed order be submitted to the Director of the Department recommending the denial of the Application. A true copy of the Protest is attached as Exhibit 1. 18. Approximately 20 days later, Ms. Bugg held a Scheduling Conference on January 30, 2026. During the Scheduling Conference, Ms. Bugg initially indicated that she wanted a quick hearing – within the next 2 weeks! 19. Ms. Bugg also indicated that she intended to limit discovery to the depositions of experts. 20. Of course, Ada Aggregates agreed with Ms. Bugg and urged a short discovery period of less than 30 days. Ada Aggregates provided no real justification for the urgency other than unsubstantiated claims of lost opportunity costs.¹ 21. At least Ada Aggregates had some semblance of a reason. The Department’s stated position is that it does not care whether a permit is issued or not. Instead, the Department joined in this request for no reason other than the Department “wanted this over.” 22. Plaintiffs’ counsel requested additional time for discovery as well as the ability to issue subpoenas and interrogatories and depose fact witnesses who may have relevant information.² ¹ Since that time, Ada Aggregates has filed an Application for Temporary Relief requesting that the Director authorize Ada Aggregates to commence mining without a permit. Ada Aggregates reasons that the issuance of a permit by the Department is a foregone conclusion, and Ada Aggregates promises to follow the rules until a permit is issued. Plaintiffs’ response to the application is due on February 20, 2026. ² 23. Nevertheless, on February 3, 2026, Ms. Bugg entered a Scheduling Conference Order (the “Order”) that provided for discovery to be completed by March 27, 2026, which affords Plaintiffs only 25 business days to conduct the limited discovery permitted by the Order. A copy of the Order is attached as Exhibit 2. 24. The Order further limits discovery to “retaining expert witnesses that have yet to be retained and conducting depositions of any expert witnesses.” The Order does not permit the deposition of fact witnesses such as (i) Bobbette Hoevker, the Ada Aggregates representative who prepared the Application;3 (ii) Barry Hoevker, the Ada Aggregates representative in charge of operations;4 and (iii) Mr. Shore, the Department representative who recommended approval of the Application.5 The Order also does not allow for written discovery or subpoenas. 25. Finally, the Order sets a formal hearing date of April 8, 2026. ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES As noted above, a writ of mandamus “may be issued by the Supreme Court or the district court, or any justice or judge thereof ... to any inferior tribunal, corporation, board or person, to compel the performance of any act which the law specially enjoins as a duty[.]” See 12 Okla. Stat. § 1451. In Chandler U.S.A., Inc. v. Tyree, 2004 OK 16, ¶ 24, 87 P.3d 598, 604-05, the Supreme Court of Oklahoma explained: A typical case for mandamus has five elements: (1) the party seeking the writ has no plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law, (2) the party seeking the 2 The Order also required the parties to file preliminary witness and exhibit lists a week later. 3 The Preliminary Witness & Exhibit Lists of Ada Aggregates lists Ms. Hoevker as a witness who is expected to testify regarding Ada Aggregates’ business and mining operations at the location in question, as well as another mine Ada Aggregates operates; the Application; and Plaintiffs’ allegations. See, Preliminary Witness & Exhibit Lists of Ada Aggregates, Exhibit 3. 4 Ada Aggregates also lists Mr. Hoevker as a witness expected to testify. See Exhibit 3. 5 Ada Aggregates also anticipates calling Mr. Shore to testify regarding the Application, Plaintiffs’ protest, and presumably Mr. Shore’s recommendation. writ possesses a clear legal right to the relief sought, (3) the respondent (defendant) has a plain legal duty regarding the relief sought, (4) the respondent has refused to perform that duty, and (5) the respondent’s duty does not involve the exercise of discretion. However, a writ of mandamus may be used to correct an official’s arbitrary abuse of discretion. See also State ex rel. Smith v. Banking Bd., 1980 OK 84, ¶ 10, 612 P.2d 257, 261. In this case, there are two aspects of the Order that demand review: (1) the refusal to permit reasonable discovery, including the deposition of fact witnesses who clearly possess important relevant information and are expected to testify, and the issuance of subpoenas for relevant documents; and (2) the arbitrary limit of 25 business days within which to accomplish discovery. A. The Department, the Director, and Ms. Bugg each have a plain legal duty. According to 45 O.S. § 732 (a), the rules of the Department must conform to both the Mining Lands Reclamation Act and the Administrative Procedures Act. For that reason, the rules of the Department provide that “[a]ll hearings for formal review held under the authority of [The Mining Lands Reclamation Act] 45 O.S., Section 721 et seq., shall be in compliance with [the Administrative Procedures Act] 75 O.S., Section 301 et seq., as amended, and with this Chapter.” OAC 460:3-1-5(b). Emphasis added. On the issue of discovery, the Department’s rules provide that “pre-hearing discovery by a party may be allowed as provided under the Administrative Procedures Act and this Chapter.” OAC 460:3-1-5(f). While a hearing examiner has some discretion in this regard, any limitations imposed by a hearing examiner must be (i) “reasonable and necessary” and, more importantly, (ii) cannot override the provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”). See supra 45 O.S. § 732 (a) and OAC 460:3-1-5(f). Emphasis added. Discovery under the APA is addressed in § 315 which provides: (A)(2). The agency, or any party to a proceeding before it, may take the depositions of witnesses, within or without the state, in the same manner as is provided by law for the taking of depositions in civil actions in courts of record. Depositions so taken shall be admissible in any proceeding affected by this act. *** (B). In furtherance of the powers granted by subsection A of this section, any agency, administrative head, hearing examiner or any other duly authorized member or employee thereof, upon its own motion may, and upon the request any party appearing in an individual proceeding shall: *** (2) issue subpoenas duces tecum to compel the production of books, records, papers or other objects, which may be served by the marshal of the agency or by any person in any manner prescribed for the service of a subpoena in a civil action; or See 75 O.S. § 315(A)(2) and (B)(2). Emphasis added. Therefore, there is nothing discretionary about Plaintiffs' right to discovery under the APA - Plaintiffs have the right to take the depositions of witnesses, and a hearing examiner must issue subpoenas for the production of documents. B. The requested discovery is crucial to Plaintiffs' case. One of Plaintiffs' challenges to the recommendation of the Department centers around the unsuitability of the proposed site and the devastating impact it will have upon the lives and properties of Plaintiffs, including the constant noise, ever-present dust, blasting, increased traffic, and other deleterious impacts to Plaintiffs, their property, and the environment. These issues all necessitate fact discovery. For instance: (i) One issue will be the levels of particulate matter that can be expected in the fugitive dust from the proposed operations. The answer depends to some extent upon the number of rock crushers, the throughput of those crushers, the release height, the source width, etc. That will require the deposition of Mr. Hoevker, the Operations Manager. (ii) Another issue is the amount of dust from haul roads and other sources. That will require a site inspection. (iii) Then there are the deficiencies in the Application itself. That will require the deposition of Ms. Hoevker, the author of the Application. (iv) Another issue will be the operational nuisances experienced by Plaintiffs while Ada Aggregates was operating illegally – the noise, the ever-present dust, the blasting, the increased traffic, and the other deleterious impacts. What does Ada Aggregates hope to do to address those issues? Again, Mr. Hoevker. (v) Yet another issue will be whether the Department has the desire or ability to make Ada Aggregates control fugitive dust. According to Mr. Shore, the Department’s ability to do so was one of the primary reasons why he recommended issuance of the permit. Plaintiffs are entitled to depose Mr. Shore and find out just what the Department says it can do about the inevitable dust so Plaintiffs can be prepared to address those ‘promises’ at the hearing. (vi) And there is also the noise in terms of both levels and controls. That obviously depends to some extent upon the equipment to be used, the hours of operation, and a variety of other things. According to Mr. Shore, “ODM will use all tools available and require the permittee to reduce noise levels …” What does that look like? What tools? Again, questions for Mr. Shore and Mr. Hoevker. (vii) Finally, what about the blasting? Mr. Shore says that “ODM routinely inspects and monitors blasting operations around the state to ensure safe storage and transportation of explosives on site, blast site and blast area security, and the safe loading and detonation of explosives.” What does that entail? With all due respect, Mr. Shore would not be living within 500’ of the blast site. Suffice it to say, there are a number of fact witnesses that Plaintiffs are entitled to depose, including Mr. and Ms. Hoevker and Mr. Shore. Notably, Ada Aggregates has already indicated it intends to call the Hoevkers and Mr. Shore as witnesses. Gathering these and other relevant facts is an essential part of both preparing to depose Ada Aggregates’ opposing experts, and providing Plaintiffs’ experts with the factual predicate needed to form their own opinions. Ms. Bugg’s discretion does not extend to depriving Plaintiffs of something the APA affords them: the ability to collect evidence and depose witnesses. C. Allowing 25 business days to conduct discovery was an arbitrary abuse of Ms. Bugg’s discretion. Admittedly, the Department’s rule gives Ms. Bugg a certain amount of discretion – the ability to “impose reasonable and necessary limitations on the period of time which discovery requests may be presented and entertained.” OAC 460:3-1-5(f). But even this type of discretion is not limitless especially when the restrictions imposed by Ms. Bugg effectively destroy Plaintiffs’ right to conduct reasonable discovery. For this reason, even this type of discretion is subject to control by a superintending authority such as this Court if there has been an arbitrary abuse of that discretion. Whether the time limit imposed by Ms. Bugg was arbitrary or an abuse of discretion depends upon the facts of the case. Board of County Com’rs of Nowata County v. Price, 1963 OK 182, ¶ 14, 385 P.2d 479, 482. If so, the ability to correct that abuse lies within this Court’s legal and equitable discretion. Board of Trustees of Fireman’s Relief & Pension Fund of City of Holdenville v. Cotton, 1953 OK 110, ¶15, 256 P.2d 802; Morton v. Adair County Excise Board, 1989 OK 174, ¶ 4, 780 P.2d 707. Put another way, given the fact that Plaintiffs have a right to depose fact witnesses and issue subpoenas during the course of reasonable discovery, was Ms. Bugg’s limit of 25 business days arbitrary? Ada Aggregates has listed five (5) witnesses: Mr. and Ms. Hoevker, Mr. Shore, and two experts. And this is just the list of witnesses that Ada Aggregates currently says it intends to call. Even if this were the entire universe of witnesses, forcing Plaintiffs to depose these witnesses under the time constraint imposed by Ms. Bugg is arbitrary because it is both unrealistic and unnecessary. It is unrealistic because, with all due respect, an 'experts only' approach to discovery seems divorced from reality. Ordinarily, the effective deposition of an expert requires at least (i) discovery of the underlying facts that may support or discredit an expert's opinion, and (ii) another expert in the same discipline to assist counsel in identifying the scientific or technical issues that must be explored. The depositions of the Hoevkers and Mr. Shore supply the facts necessary to inform and conduct the depositions of Ada Aggregates' two experts. The time restriction in the Order means Plaintiffs will have to prepare for, conduct, and defend the depositions of Ada Aggregates' three fact witnesses and two expert witnesses, together with the Plaintiffs and their experts, all over the course of the next 25 business days. That is not realistic. The arbitrariness of the time restriction is punctuated by the fact that it is completely unnecessary. It is the product of nothing more than Ada Aggregate's desire to begin mining sooner rather than later, and the Department's desire to simply get it over. But Plaintiffs are looking at dust, noise, and blasting for the next fifty (50) years. So there is every reason to give Plaintiffs a reasonable amount of time to prepare. Clearly, the time constraint imposed by Ms. Bugg was completely arbitrary and thus subject to a writ of mandamus. D. Mandamus is the appropriate remedy The extraordinary relief of a writ of mandamus or of prohibition is available under proper circumstances either to order or to prohibit the production of evidence prior to trial. However, before appropriate relief may be granted, it must be shown that the trial court exceeded either its authority or its discretion in ordering or denying pretrial discovery. Ellison v. Gray, 1985 OK 35, ¶6, 702 P.2d 360, 362-63; Cowen v. Hughes, 1973 OK 11, ¶13, 509 P.2d 461, 464. In Exxon Co., U.S.A. v. District Court of Kingfisher County, Fourth Judicial Dist., 1977 OK 231, 571 P.2d 1228, a surface damages case, Exxon sought a writ of mandamus when the district court sustained objections to what were clearly relevant interrogatories with no reason given. Id. at ¶5. After observing that discovery rules and statutes are to be liberally construed and the interrogatories fell within the scope of proper discovery, the court held that the trial court had clearly abused his discretion and issued writs of mandamus and prohibition directing the district court to vacate its earlier order sustaining the objections and enter an order requiring the plaintiffs to answer the interrogatories. Id. at ¶¶5, 8. Ms. Bugg’s ‘experts only’ limitation and the 25 days within which to conduct even those depositions was an abuse of discretion. The right to discovery is meaningless unless it comes with a reasonable period of time to exercise that right. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs requests that this Court issue a writ of mandamus requiring Defendants Oklahoma Department of Mines, Director Suzen Rodesney, and Kristen Bugg to perform their prescribed duties as set forth above immediately upon receipt of the writ by entering a new Scheduling Order which allows the parties ninety (90) days from the date of the entry of such order within which to conduct discovery, and includes the ability to depose any witness which may have information relevant to the Application or the Plaintiffs’ protest, and request that Ms. Bugg issue subpoenas at the request of the parties to any person or entity in the possession of what may be relevant documents. Respectfully submitted, Kiran A. Phansalkar, OBA #11470 Mitchell D. Blackburn, OBA #12217 Preston M. Sullivan, OBA #33619 CONNER & WINTERS, LLP One Leadership Square, Suite 1700 211 North Robinson Oklahoma City, OK 73102-7101 Telephone: (405) 272-5711 Facsimile: (405) 232-2695 Email: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiffs BEFORE THE OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF MINES STATE OF OKLAHOMA The Matter of the Permit of Ada Aggregates, LLC to Engage in Non-Coal Mining in an area of 311 acres, more or less, located in Sections 25, 26, and 35, Township 3 North, Range 5 East in Pontotoc County, State of Oklahoma Application # L.E. 2890; Conference # PAN 25-03-IC PROTEST OF DEPARTMENTAL RECOMMENDATION OF APPLICATION APPROVAL AND REQUEST FOR HEARING Protestants FRANK R. CRABTREE, JR., an individual, LISA CRABTREE, an individual, the FRANK R. CRABTREE, JR. REVOCABLE TRUST, an Oklahoma trust, THOMAS B. CRABTREE, an individual, DARLENE CRABTREEE, an individual, the TOM CRABTREE AND DARLENE CRABTREE FAMILY TRUST, an Oklahoma trust THOMAS BLAKE CRABTREE, JR., an individual, MELISSA CRABTREE, an individual, CARLYLE HILL, an individual, DONNA HILL, an individual, ERYN HANSON, an individual, ERIK HANSON, an individual, LUKE CRABTREE, an individual, and CRABTREE FARMS, INC. an Oklahoma corporation, (collectively, "Protestants") protest the proposed approval of Application # L.E. 2890 (the "Application") and recommendation of the Oklahoma Department of Mines for the issuance of a permit authorizing Ada Aggregates, LLC to engage in non-coal blasting and mining on 311 acres situated in Sections 25, 26, and 35, Township 3 N, Range 5 East, in Pontotoc County, Oklahoma (the "Proposed Permit"). INTRODUCTION Each of the Protestants live and/or own real property about 5 miles southwest of Ada, Oklahoma. Ada Aggregates' proposed quarry sits right in the middle of their homes. On October 10, 2023, Ada Aggregates submitted an ‘Application for Permit to Engage in Non-Coal Mining’ to the Department requesting a 50-year permit to conduct blasting and mine limestone from a 311-acre tract situated in Sections 25, 26, and 35, Township 3 North, Range 5 East, in Pontotoc County, Oklahoma. Ada Aggregates was statutorily required to publish notice of its permit application in a newspaper of general circulation in the vicinity of the proposed quarry. Title 12 O.S. § 724 (H)(1). Instead of publishing notice of the application in a newspaper of general circulation located some 5 miles from the proposed quarry (The Ada News), Ada Aggregates travelled to Allen, the outskirts of Pontotoc County,1 and published its notice in The Allen Advocate. As a result, 1 Half of Allen is actually in Hughes County. Protestants did not learn that a permit had been issued until February 22, 2024, after Ada Aggregates had already begun construction. Protestants filed a Protest Regarding Issuance of Permit to Engage in Non-Coal Mining and Request for Hearing with the Department requesting that a hearing be held to reconsider the issuance of the permit and that after such consideration, the permit be revoked and Ada Aggregates compelled to properly publish notice of its application so that persons with the potential to be adversely impacted by Ada Aggregates’ proposed mining operation would have the opportunity to participate in an informal conference and, if requested, a formal hearing on the application. Both the Department and Ada Aggregates filed responses alleging that Ada Aggregates had complied with the notice by publication requirement of both the Mining Lands Reclamation Act, 45 O.S. §§ 721 et seq. (the “Act”) and the Department’s regulations regarding notice by publication. On April 22, 2024, the Department issued its Order on Protest and Request for Hearing ruling that the Department had followed all governing statutes, rules and regulations in granting the Permit, and that the Department had no procedure or mechanism by which to grant a hearing to Protestants after the statutory and regulatory times periods for such a request had passed. As a result, Protestants’ request was denied and Ada Aggregates was allowed to continue to conduct non-coal mining operations on the property. Protestants then filed their Petition for Review of Final Agency Order on May 14, 2024, in an action styled, Frank R. Crabtree, Jr., et al. v. State of Oklahoma, ex rel., Oklahoma Department of Mines, et al., Case No. CV-2024-53, District Court of Pontotoc County, Oklahoma, seeking review of the Order. In that case, the Court ruled that Ada Aggregates had failed to satisfy the statutory and regulatory application notice requirements, and Ada Aggregates was also constitutionally required to provide Protestants with actual notice of the application. Since Ada Aggregates failed to do so, the Court determined that the permit issued to Ada Aggregates by the Department was invalid and the matter should be remanded to the Department to reopen the permit proceedings. In the interim, the Court enjoined Ada Aggregates from conducting any further non-coal surface mining or operations related thereto on the property unless and until it secured a new permit from the Department. In accordance with this ruling, the Department subsequently issued a Cessation Order to Ada Aggregates prohibiting any further mining or operations related to mining on the property. Now, rather than reopening the prior permit proceedings as directed by the Court, Ada Aggregates has filed a new application and initiated new permit proceedings despite simultaneously appealing the decision of the Court invalidating Ada Aggregate's prior permit. In other words, Ada Aggregates takes the position that it already has a validly issued permit and is seeking yet another permit in case its appeal of the Court's decision is unsuccessful. Moreover, Ada Aggregates has continued to conduct "mining or operations related to mining" on the property despite the order entered by the Court and the Cessation Order issued by the Department. FACTS 1. The legislatively declared policy of The Mining Lands Reclamation Act, 45 O.S. §721 et seq., includes the protection of the natural beauty and aesthetic values of the State, and the protection and promotion of the health, safety, and general welfare of the people of this State. 2. To achieve that goal, the Legislature charged the Department with the primary responsibility for, inter alia, promulgating and enforcing rules and regulations to govern non-coal surface mining. 3. On May 23, 2025,2 Ada Aggregates submitted an 'Application for Permit to Engage in Non-Coal Mining' requesting a 50-year permit to conduct blasting and mine limestone from a 311-acre tract situated in Sections 25, 26, and 35, Township 3 North, Range 5 East, in Pontotoc County, Oklahoma. 4. The 311-acre tract is located approximately 5 miles southwest of Ada. 5. The Protestants reside in Sections 25, 26, 34, and 35 Township 9 South, Range 1 East, in Pontotoc County, Oklahoma. One or more of the Protestants reside as close as 500' – 600' from the proposed quarry. This time (and because of the Court's decision), Ada Aggregates gave Protestants actual notice that an application had been filed. 6. After a series of revisions to Ada Aggregates' permit application, the Department deemed the Application 'complete,' and Ada Aggregates published notice of the Application. Protestants timely demanded an informal conference pursuant to the Act and the Department's regulations. 7. An informal conference was held on December 4, 2025. 8. As a result of Ada Aggregates' original subterfuge and the Department's refusal to allow Protestants to formally object to the issuance of Ada Aggregates prior permit, Ada Aggregates was allowed to conduct illegal non-coal mining operations on the property from approximately February 2024 to May 2025. 9. As a result, Protestants have experienced the actual impact of Ada Aggregates' non-coal surface mining next door to their residences. 10. The people present at the informal conference who object to the application and proposed mining operations explained how Ada Aggregates' prior illegal operations on the 2 Some four days after the Court invalidated Ada Aggregates' prior permit. property had impacted their property and lives, including the constant noise, ever-present dust, effects of blasting, increased traffic, and other deleterious impacts to themselves, their property, and the environment. 11. Nevertheless, on December 12, 2025, the Department issued its Notice of Departmental Recommendation recommending issuance of a permit to Ada Aggregates. I. ADA AGGREGATES HAS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT ITS PROPOSED OPERATIONS WILL PROTECT PROPERTY AND PEOPLE 12. The Department's Non-Coal Permitting Guidelines and Summary provide that an applicant for a non-coal surface mining permit is required to demonstrate that the proposed operations will protect property and people. 13. The regulations provide that: No permit application shall be approved, unless the application affirmatively demonstrates and the Department finds, on the basis of information set forth in the application or from information otherwise available, which is documented in the approval and made available to the applicant, that – (1) The permit application is accurate and complete and in compliance with all requirements of 45 O.S. (1981), Section 721 et seq., and this Chapter. (2) The applicant has demonstrated that non-coal surface mining and reclamation operations, as required by 45 O.S. (1981), Section 721 et seq., and this Chapter can be feasibly accomplished under the mining and reclamation operations plan contained in the application. 14. In other words, an applicant must demonstrate that the proposed operations described in its application can be safely and feasibly accomplished by the applicant. Ada Aggregates has already demonstrated that it cannot do so. 15. Ada Aggregates plans to blast and crush limestone at the quarry for the next 50 years. As noted above, Protestants have already had a chance to experience the result before Ada Aggregates was caught. 16. The blasting and ever-present layer of limestone dust was destroying Protestants' personal property and the value of their real property has plummeted. 17. From a health perspective, exposure to limestone dust at the levels that the Protestants can expect typically results in respiratory tract infections, airway narrowing, loss of cilia, difficulty breathing, lower lung function parameters, chest tightness, chronic cough, and higher instances of eye and nasal allergy and dryness. 18. In addition, the Protestants can no longer enjoy their homes and properties due to the constant noise of heavy machinery and rock crushers, and the blasting that rattles the doors. 19. The Department's regulations require an applicant such as Ada Aggregates to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Department that the proposed mining operations will not harm people, property, or the environment. 20. None of these concerns have been adequately addressed by Ada Aggregates or the Department. 21. For example, a number of the Protestants who attended the informal conference complained of the constant dust generated by Ada Aggregates' prior operations. Everything outside was covered with dust and even with sealed windows and hospital grade filters, the dust repeatedly found its way inside their homes. 22. The Department acknowledges that a permittee such as Ada Aggregates is required to control dust and notes that the Department inspects permittees' operations 4-6 times per year and checks for dust. 23. But actual experience has shown that Ada Aggregates either cannot or will not suppress the dust from its operations, and the Department's inspections "4-6 times per year, or more as needed ..." are clearly not enough to remedy the problem. 24. Each time Protestants complained of the dust generated by Ada Aggregates’ prior operations, Protestants would be told that since the dust wasn’t blowing at that moment, there was nothing the Department could do about the problem. 25. History clearly indicates that Ada Aggregates is either intentionally or negligently (but certainly routinely) operating in violation of the Department’s regulations and those operations are destroying the Protestants’ property and peaceful enjoyment of their homes. 26. At the informal conference, Protestants also pointed out the incessant noise associated with Ada Aggregates’ prior operations. 27. The Department notes that it can require a reduction in sound levels as needed to protect workers, but that’s it. 28. Mine workers should be protected, but those protections do not alleviate the constant noise that has destroyed the Protestants peaceful enjoyment of their properties. Imagine living 500’ from a construction site that operates rock crushers, dump trucks, back hoes, and other heavy machinery daily from daylight to dusk. Even when you are forced to retreat inside, you cannot escape the constant noise. The peaceful enjoyment of your home is impossible, and your property value will plummet. This is what the Protestants face on a daily basis, and this is what the Department has recommended that Ada Aggregates be allowed to do. 29. The Protestants at the informal conference also voiced complaints about the blasting in connection with Ada Aggregates’ operations. One blast rattled Blake’s house so hard it opened the back door. 30. The Department has proposed a condition that would require Ada Aggregates to give people advance notice of blasting and the maintenance of blast reports (which are already required). 31. With all due respect, knowing when a blast is coming and having a record of the blast does nothing to alleviate the impact and damage from the blast itself. The best that Ada Aggregates can do is say that they "[w]ill adhere to the blasting plan and agency guidelines." 32. People complained of truck congestion and traffic safety issues. 33. The Department says they have no jurisdiction but feel certain that Ada Aggregates will want to be a 'good neighbor.' This, even though all evidence is to the contrary. 34. In addition, both the Act and the regulations of the Department require a valid permit as a prerequisite to non-coal surface mining. On May 20, 2025, the Court determined that the permit previously issued to Ada Aggregates by the Department was invalid and enjoined Ada Aggregates from conducting any further non-coal surface mining or operations related thereto on the property unless and until it secured a new permit from the Department. 35. The Department also issued a letter stating that "all mining activities must cease on the acreage permitted under ODM Permit # LE-2833 immediately." 36. Nevertheless, Ada Aggregates continued to conduct illegal mining operations on the property. 37. Moreover, even though the Department subsequently cited Ada Aggregates for conducting illegal mining operations on the property without a valid permit and issued a Cessation Order to Ada Aggregates prohibiting any further illegal mining or operations related to mining on the property, Ada Aggregates has continued to conduct what can only be characterized as "non-coal surface mining or operations related thereto." 38. Finally, the Application submitted by Ada Aggregates and approved by the Department is deficient in a number of respects, including inadequate maps, an inadequate reclamation plan, and an inadequate blasting plan. 39. Ada Aggregates now seeks a new permit despite having their previous permit invalidated jeopardizing their eligibility for the same pursuant to 45 O.S. § 736. 40. Ada Aggregates’ prior permit required that it reclaim the property once its permit was no longer in effect. Since May 2025 Ada Aggregates has done nothing to reclaim the property either due to lack of resources or such reclamation is unfeasible. 41. The reclamation plan proposed in the Application is similar to the prior reclamation plan and such a reclamation has been demonstrably proven unfeasible by Ada Aggregates failure to abide by the plan. 42. Ada Aggregates has not demonstrated that its proposed operations will protect the environment, property and people. Based upon the foregoing, the Protestants request that following reasonable prehearing discovery, a hearing be held to consider the Application and the recommendation of the Department and that after such consideration, a proposed order be submitted to the Director denying the Application. Respectfully submitted, [signature] Kiran A. Phansalkar, OBA #11470 Mitchell D. Blackburn, OBA #12217 Preston M. Sullivan, OBA #33619 CONNER & WINTERS, LLP One Leadership Square, Suite 1700 211 North Robinson Oklahoma City, OK 73102-7101 Telephone: (405) 272-5711 Facsimile: (405) 232-2695 Email: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Protestants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing instrument was hand-delivered and transmitted via electronic mail this 9th day of January 2026 to: Suzen Rodesney, Director State of Oklahoma Department of Mines 2915 N. Classen Blvd., Suite 213 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73016 c/o P. Clayton Eubanks, OBA #16648 Chief Legal Counsel Oklahoma Department of Mines 2915 N. Classen Blvd., Suite 213 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73016 Telephone: (405) 522-9849 Email: [email protected] Attorneys for Respondent Oklahoma Department of Mines and mailed by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, and U.S. Mail, first-class, postage prepaid, and transmitted via electronic mail to: Wm. Bailey Cook, III, OBA #13642 Trevor S. Pemberton Jack D. Craven, OBA #21898 Pemberton Law Group, PLLC Wm. Bailey Cook III, PC 600 North Robinson, Suite 308 1312 Cradduck Road, PO Box 1391 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 Ada, OK 74821 Telephone: (405) 501-5054 Telephone: (580) 436-1828 Email: [email protected] Facsimile: (580) 436-4737 Email: [email protected] Attorneys for Respondent Ada Aggregates, LLC Ada Aggregates, LLC Bobbette Dawnice Hoevker Registered Agent 16513 County Road 3560 Ada, Oklahoma 74820 ____________________________________ Kiran A. Phansalkar BEFORE THE OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF MINES STATE OF OKLAHOMA IN RE: The Matter of the Application of Ada Aggregates, LLC, for a Permit to Engage in Non-Coal Surface Mining and Reclamation Operations in an Area of 311 Acres, More or Less, Located in Sections 25, 26, and 35, Township 3 North, Range 5 East, in Pontotoc County, State of Oklahoma. Case No. PAN 25-03-FH Permit L.E.-2890 SCHEDULING CONFERENCE ORDER This matter came on for a telephonic Scheduling Conference on January 30, 2026, before the undersigned Hearing Examiner. Applicant, Ada Aggregates, LLC, appeared by and through its attorneys of record: Wm. Bailey Cook, III of Wm. Bailey Cook III, PC; Trevor S. Pemberton of Pemberton Law Group PLLC; and J. Derek Hardberger and Colby J. Byrd of McAfee & Taft. Protestants, Frank R. Crabtree, Jr., Revocable Trust, Thomas B. Crabtree, Darlene Crabtree, Tom Crabtree and Darlene Crabtree Family Trust, Thomas Blake Crabtree, Jr., Melissa Crabtree, Carlyle Hill, Donna Hill, Eryn Hanson, Erik Hanson, Luke Crabtree, and Crabtree Farms, Inc., appeared by and through their attorneys of record: Mitchell D. Blackburn, Kiran A. Phansalkar, and Preston M. Sullivan of Conner & Winters, LLP. The Department of Mines appeared by and through its Chief Legal Counsel, P. Clayton Eubanks. During the Scheduling Conference, the Parties and Hearing Examiner discussed formal hearing dates and the need if any for pre-hearing discovery. Counsel for Protestants requested pre-hearing discovery and requested 90 days for pre-hearing discovery with the formal hearing to occur in or after May 2026. Counsel for Applicant requested 30 days for pre-hearing discovery with the formal hearing to occur in March 2026. Counsel for the Department of Mines requested formal hearing dates in March 2026 or sooner. In consideration of the requests regarding pre-hearing discovery and the formal hearing scheduling requests made by the Parties, including lengthy discussion regarding need for pre-hearing discovery and the anticipated time for conducting same, the Hearing Examiner determined (over the objections of the Parties) that: • There is a need for limited pre-hearing discovery. Pre-hearing discovery shall be limited to retaining expert witnesses that have yet to be retained and conducting depositions of any expert witnesses; and • The Formal Hearing shall occur in April 2026. Once the Hearing Examiner determined the above, the Parties participated in discussion regarding the Scheduling Order, including their availability for the Formal Hearing, set forth below: <table> <tr> <th>1.</th> <th>Preliminary Witness and Exhibit Lists to be Exchanged by:</th> <th>February 6, 2026</th> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2">(The Preliminary Witness Lists shall include anticipated testimony of the witnesses identified therein. Copies of the exhibits identified on the Preliminary Exhibit Lists shall also be exchanged between the Parties. The Hearing Examiner shall receive copies of the Preliminary Witness and Exhibit Lists. The Hearing Examiner does <u>not</u> need to receive copies of the exhibits identified on the Preliminary Exhibit Lists.)</td> <td></td> </tr> <tr> <th>2.</th> <th>Supplemental Witness and Exhibit Lists to be Exchanged by:</th> <th>February 27, 2026</th> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2">(In addition to any other changes for the Preliminary exchange, the Supplemental Witness Lists shall disclose any experts retained since the time of the Preliminary exchange and their anticipated testimony. Copies of any exhibits identified in the Supplemental Exhibit List that were not previously identified on the Preliminary Exhibit Lists shall be exchanged between the Parties. The Hearing Examiner shall receive copies of the Supplemental Witness and Exhibit Lists. The Hearing Examiner does <u>not</u> need to receive copies of the exhibits identified on the Supplemental Exhibit Lists.)</td> <td></td> </tr> </table> <table> <tr> <th></th> <th>(This event was not discussed during the Scheduling Conference; however, upon preparing this Scheduling Conference Order, the Hearing Examiner determined this task was useful, if not necessary, and set a date for completing same.)</th> <th></th> </tr> <tr> <td>3.</td> <td>Pre-hearing discovery, including depositions of expert witnesses, shall be completed by:<br><br>(Pre-hearing discovery is limited to retaining expert witnesses that have yet to be retained and conducting depositions of any expert witnesses.)</td> <td>March 27, 2026</td> </tr> <tr> <td>4.</td> <td>The Parties shall submit a joint pretrial conference order to the Hearing Examiner by:<br><br>(The Parties are expected to work together, providing each other appropriate time for review and revision, before submission. In addition to all the information and items generally included in a pretrial conference order, the Parties shall use their best estimate to list the witnesses in the order to be called and a brief statement of the proposed testimony of each shall be provided. The pretrial conference order, which shall include each Parties’ Formal Hearing witnesses and exhibits, shall serve as the Parties’ Final Witness and Exhibit List exchange. The Parties shall exchange the exhibits identified in the joint pretrial conference order and shall submit same to the Hearing Examiner. Each Party shall submit their exhibits to the Hearing Examiner in a binder. Each Party shall arrange their exhibits within the binder in the order identified in the joint pretrial conference order.)</td> <td>March 31, 2026</td> </tr> <tr> <td>5.</td> <td>Telephonic Pre-hearing Conference<br><br>(This event was not discussed during the Scheduling Conference; as such, the Hearing Examiner set a date/time for same.)</td> <td>April 3, 2026,<br>at 11:00 A.M.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>6.</td> <td>Formal Hearing Days/Dates/Time/Location:<br><br>(During the Formal Hearing, the Parties will make their appearances for the record and state whether they are appearing in support of or in opposition to the application. Protestants will present their case first, followed by the Applicant, and then the Oklahoma Department of Mines. Each Party will be allowed an opening statement and then the</td> <td>Days:<br>Three (3) days, as needed.<br><br>Dates/Time:<br>April 8, 2026;<br>April 9, 2026; and<br>April 10, 2026,<br>10:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M.,</td> </tr> </table> Hearing Examiner will entertain the presentation of evidence, through witnesses and exhibits. The testimony of a witness shall be taken only upon sworn oath or affirmation. Witnesses shall be sworn individually. Each party shall have the right to call and examine witnesses, to introduce exhibits, to cross-examine opposing witnesses, to object to the introduction of evidence, to impeach witnesses, and to rebut evidence presented. Once all Parties have rested their case, each will be allowed time for a closing argument. As provided under the Administrative Procedures Act, the strict and formal rules of evidence that are applied in a court of law are not required in Oklahoma Department of Mines hearings for formal review. All evidence – exhibits and testimony – offered must be relevant and material to the matter subject of the application and hearing. Evidence may be received by stipulation or agreement of the Parties pursuant to OAC 460:3-1-5(g)(4) or by judicial notice pursuant to OAC 460:3-1-5(g)(5). Nothing herein shall be deemed to limit the Parties from making objections to evidence, including exhibits, or witness testimony during the Formal Hearing pursuant to applicable law.) 7. Post-hearing briefs on legal issues; and/or Post-hearing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law shall be submitted by: (This event was not discussed during the Scheduling Conference; as such, the Hearing Examiner set a date/time for same.) each day, as needed. Location: Musser Learning Lab Oklahoma History Center 800 Nazih Zuhdi Drive Oklahoma City, OK 73105 TBD at the conclusion of the Formal Hearing at the request of a Party and/or the Hearing Examiner. It is so ORDERED this 3rd day of February 2026. Kristin Bugg Administrative Law Judge NOTICE OF MAILING I, the undersigned, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Order was sent on February 3, 2026, by electronic mail, to: J. Derek Hardberger J. Todd Woolery Colby J. Byrd Katherine M. Crowley MCAFEE & TAFT A Professional Corporation 8th Floor, Two Leadership Square 211 N. Robinson Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Attorneys for Applicant, Ada Aggregates, LLC Wm. Bailey Cook, III Jack D. Craven WM. BAILEY COOK III, PC 1312 Cradduck Road, PO Box 1391 Ada, OK 74821 Email: [email protected] Attorneys for Applicant, Ada Aggregates, LLC Trevor S. Pemberton PEMBERTON LAW GROUP PLLC 600 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 308 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Email: [email protected] Attorney for Applicant, Ada Aggregates, LLC Kiran A. Phansalkar Mitchell D. Blackburn Preston M. Sullivan CONNER & WINTERS, LLP One Leadership Square, Suite 1700 211 North Robinson Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Attorneys for Protestants, Frank R. Crabtree, Jr., Lisa Crabtree, the Frank R. Crabtree, Jr., Revocable Trust, Thomas B. Crabtree, Darlene Crabtree, the Tom Crabtree and Darlene Crabtree Family Trust, Thomas Blake Crabtree, Jr., Melissa Crabtree, Carlyle Hill, Donna Hill, Eryn Hanson, Erik Hanson, Luke Crabtree, and Crabtree Farms, Inc. Kristin Bugg Kristin Bugg Administrative Law Judge BEFORE THE OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF MINES STATE OF OKLAHOMA IN RE: The Matter of the Application of Ada Aggregates, LLC, for a permit to engage in surface mining and reclamation OPERATIONS in an area of 311 acres more or less, located in Sections 25, 26, AND 35, Township 3 North, Range 5 East, Pontotoc County, Oklahoma. Case No. PAN 25-03-FH Permit No. L.E.-2890 APPLICANT’S PRELIMINARY WITNESS & EXHIBIT LISTS Applicant, Ada Aggregates, LLC ("Applicant"), submits Applicant’s Preliminary Witness and Exhibit Lists in accordance with the Scheduling Conference Order dated February 3, 2026. Applicant reserves the right to supplement these lists in accordance with the Scheduling Conference Order as limited discovery is ongoing. PRELIMINARY WITNESS LIST <table> <tr> <th>No.</th> <th>Witness</th> <th>Subject Matter</th> </tr> <tr> <td>1.</td> <td>Bobbette Hoevker<br>c/o Applicant’s Counsel</td> <td>Facts and circumstances concerning Applicant’s business and mining operations; AA1 Mine; AA2 Mine, the prior permit for the AA2 Mine, the permit for the AA2 Mine at issue in this Proceeding; Applicant’s proposed mining and reclamation activities at the AA2 Mine; and Protestors’ allegations.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>2.</td> <td>Barry Hoevker<br>c/o Applicant’s Counsel</td> <td>Facts and circumstances concerning Applicant’s business and mining operations; AA1 Mine; AA2 Mine, the prior permit for the AA2 Mine, the permit for the AA2 Mine at issue in this Proceeding; Applicant’s proposed mining and reclamation activities at the AA2 Mine; and Protestors’ allegations.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>3.</td> <td>Geoff Canty<br>CC Environmental, LLC<br>3533 National Drive<br>Norman, OK 73069<br>(405) 231-8181</td> <td>Facts and circumstances surrounding Applicant’s permit application; Applicant’s ODEQ permitting; Applicant’s mining and reclamation operations; and Protestors’ allegations. Expert testimony regarding Applicant’s permitting with ODEQ and Protestors’ allegations.</td> </tr> </table> <table> <tr> <th>4.</th> <td>Derek Blackshare<br>Blackshare Environmental Solutions<br>5109 South Wheeling Ave.<br>Tulsa, OK 74015<br>(918) 388-0970</td> <td>Facts and circumstances surrounding Applicant’s permit application; Applicant’s mining and reclamation operations; and Protestors’ allegations. Expert testimony regarding Applicant’s permit application and compliance with Departmental statutes, regulations, and procedures and Protestors’ allegations.</td> </tr> <tr> <th>5.</th> <td>Travis Shore<br>Chief of Minerals Operations<br>Oklahoma Department of Mines<br>2915 N. Classen Blvd., Suite 213<br>Oklahoma City, OK 73106-5486<br>(405) 522-9848</td> <td>Facts and circumstances surrounding Applicant’s permit application(s), permits, AA2 Mine, mining and reclamation plans, and Protestors’ allegations.</td> </tr> <tr> <th>6.</th> <td>All witnesses identified by Protestors, unless objected to by Applicant</td> <td></td> </tr> <tr> <th>7.</th> <td>All witnesses necessary for impeachment of and/or rebuttal of Protestors’ witnesses</td> <td></td> </tr> <tr> <th>8.</th> <td>All witnesses necessary to identify and/or lay the foundation for the admission of any exhibits</td> <td></td> </tr> <tr> <th>9.</th> <td>Additional witnesses to be identified later who are identified or discovered in continuing limited discovery pursuant to the Scheduling Order</td> <td></td> </tr> <tr> <th>10.</th> <td>All witnesses deposed in this Proceeding, unless objected to by Applicant</td> <td></td> </tr> </table> PRELIMINARY EXHIBIT LIST <table> <tr> <th>No.</th> <th>Description</th> </tr> <tr> <td>1.</td> <td>Application for Permit to Engage in Non-Coal Mining, Permit L.E.-2890</td> </tr> </table> <table> <tr> <th>2.</th> <td>Oklahoma Department of Mines Administrative Record for Application for Permit to Engage in Non-Coal Mining, Permit L.E.-2890¹</td> </tr> <tr> <th>3.</th> <td>Findings of the Informal Conference Officer</td> </tr> <tr> <th>4.</th> <td>Notice of Departmental Recommendation</td> </tr> <tr> <th>5.</th> <td>AA2 Aerial Photographs (11/14/2024)</td> </tr> <tr> <th>6.</th> <td>Video of Sole AA2 Blast (11/14/2024)</td> </tr> <tr> <th>7.</th> <td>Integrated Technical Solutions Reports (11/14/2024 & 11/22/2024)</td> </tr> <tr> <th>8.</th> <td>SWP3 for AA2</td> </tr> <tr> <th>9.</th> <td>ODEQ Complaint Files for AA2</td> </tr> <tr> <th>10.</th> <td>Permit L.E.-2833</td> </tr> <tr> <th>11.</th> <td>Application for Permit L.E.-2833</td> </tr> <tr> <th>12.</th> <td>Legal Estate – Landowner Mining Authorization</td> </tr> <tr> <th>13.</th> <td>Correspondence with Oklahoma Department of Mines re: Permit L.E.-2890</td> </tr> <tr> <th>14.</th> <td>Permit L.E.-2890 – Application Revision Nos. 1-4</td> </tr> <tr> <th>15.</th> <td>Documents related to ODOT driveway/entrance approval</td> </tr> <tr> <th>16.</th> <td>AA2 Detailed Site Map (9/23/2025)</td> </tr> <tr> <th>17.</th> <td>AA2 Reclamation Map (9/23/2025)</td> </tr> <tr> <th>18.</th> <td>AA2 Section Map (9/23/2025)</td> </tr> <tr> <th>19.</th> <td>AA2 Permitted Boundary Map (9/24/2025)</td> </tr> <tr> <th>20.</th> <td>OWRB Letter of Determination</td> </tr> <tr> <th>21.</th> <td>ODEQ Stormwater Authorization</td> </tr> <tr> <th>22.</th> <td>ODEQ On-Site Sewage System Authorization</td> </tr> </table> 1 Applicant has not yet received the administrative record and is therefore unable to exchange the same with Protestors at this time. Applicant will do so promptly upon receiving the administrative record. <table> <tr> <th>23.</th> <td>ODEQ Air Quality Authorization</td> </tr> <tr> <th>24.</th> <td>OSU Cooperative Extension Service Publications</td> </tr> <tr> <th>25.</th> <td>Oklahoma Department of Mines Instructions, Forms, and Checklist for Non-Coal Surface Mining Applications and Blasting: <ul> <li>Instructions and Guidelines</li> <li>Section 1: Non-Coal Mining Applications</li> <li>Section 2: Compliance & Related Information</li> <li>Section 3: Protection of Natural Resources</li> <li>Section 4: Reclamation Plan & Attachment</li> <li>Location and Reclamation Map</li> <li>Blasting Plan</li> <li>Blasting Permit Exemption</li> <li>Non-Coal Application Checklist</li> </ul> Available at: https://oklahoma.gov/mines/forms-and-publications/non-coal-minerals-forms-and-publications.html. </td> </tr> <tr> <th>26.</th> <td>All documents relied upon by expert(s) as a basis of opinion, if any, unless objected to by Applicant</td> </tr> <tr> <th>27.</th> <td>All documents produced by Applicant</td> </tr> <tr> <th>28.</th> <td>All documents produced by Protestors or any other party or non-party, unless objected to by Applicant</td> </tr> <tr> <th>29.</th> <td>Timelines</td> </tr> <tr> <th>30.</th> <td>Demonstrative Aids, Photographs, Aerial Photographs, Videos, Surveys</td> </tr> <tr> <th>31.</th> <td>All exhibits listed by Protestors, unless objected to by Applicant</td> </tr> <tr> <th>32.</th> <td>All exhibits necessary for impeachment of Protestors' witnesses and/or rebuttal</td> </tr> </table> Respectfully submitted this 6th day of February, 2026. /s/ Colby J. Byrd J. Derek Hardberger, OBA # 16235 J. Todd Woolery, OBA #18882 Colby J. Byrd, OBA #33478 Katherine M. Crowley, OBA #35094 McAfee & Taft A Professional Corporation 8th Floor, Two Leadership Square 211 N. Robinson Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 235-9621 Facsimile: (405) 235-0439 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Applicant, Ada Aggregates, LLC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that on February 6, 2026, a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was sent by email to the following: P. Clayton Eubanks, Chief Legal Counsel Andrea Adams, Paralegal Oklahoma Department of Mines 2915 N. Classen Blvd., Suite 213 Oklahoma City, OK 73016 [email protected] [email protected] Attorney for the Oklahoma Department of Mines Wm. Bailey Cook, III Jack D. Craven WM. BAILEY COOK III, PC 1312 Cradduck Road, PO Box 1391 Ada, OK 74821 [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Applicant Kiran A. Phansalkar Mitchell D. Blackburn Preston M. Sullivan CONNER & WINTERS, LLP One Leadership Square, Suite 1700 211 North Robinson Oklahoma City, OK 73102-7101 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Protestors Kristin Bugg, Administrative Law Judge Assistant Attorney General Legal Counsel Division Oklahoma Office of the Attorney General 313 N.E. 21st St. Oklahoma City, OK 73105 [email protected] Hearing Examiner Trevor S. Pemberton PEMBERTON LAW GROUP PLLC 600 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 308 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 [email protected] Attorney for Applicant /s/ Colby J. Byrd